Allahabad High Court
Anoop Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 19 May, 2021
Bench: Vikas Kunvar Srivastav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 28
Case :- BAIL No. - 4940 of 2021
Applicant :- Anoop Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajai Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
(In residence)
Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav,J.
The case is called out through video conferencing.
Learned counsel Sri Ajai Kumar, Advocate appears through video conferencing in virtual hearing on behalf of bail-applicant.
Learned A.G.A. on behalf of State also appears through video conferencing in virtual hearing of the case. As he has received the instructions in the matter, he is ready to argue the case on the basis of case dairy and other relevant materials available with him.
The present bail application is filed on behalf of the accused-applicant-Anoop Kumar, who is involved in Case Crime No.43 of 2021, under Sections 304, 147, 506, 323 of I.P.C., registered at Police Station Imalia Sultanpur, District Sitapur.
The occasion of present bail application has arisen on rejection of bail plea of applicant by learned District and Sessions Judge, Sitapur vide order dated 22.03.2021.
Reading over the first information report, learned counsel for the bail-applicant submitted that the present accused-applicant-Anoop Kumar, who is aged about 35 years, is implicated in the incident alongwith his father and brother. Learned counsel further submitted that a litigation with regard to property is stated in the first information report running in the Civil Court against some other persons and the present accused-applicant is alleged as an associate of the said litigating opposite party. Learned counsel further submitted that motive is also vaguely stated in the first information report that when the notice of the civil litigation, served upon that other litigating party, the present accused-applicant and his family members got annoyed and infuriated. Annoyed of the said service of the notice upon other litigating party, the present accused-applicant alongwith his father and brother attacked upon the Bankelal, forcibly pushed him on earth and beaten him badly by kick and fist.
Learned counsel further submitted that the incident is stated to have occurred on 10.02.2021 at 06:00 P.M., whereas the death of Bankelal, who is allegedly beaten by the present accused-applicant occasioned on same day at 09:00 P.M. Learned Counsel further submitted that the post-mortem report, made annexure no.4 to the bail-application, is not evidencing anti-mortem injury on the dead body of Bankelal, rather, the death is reported by reason of shock. Learned counsel pointed out that the deceased-Bankelal was of 70 years' old and death might have caused natural by reason of problems in lungs as pleaded in the application.
In the above context, learned counsel for the bail-applicant submitted that the incident, as reported, is not true but for the purpose of false implication and with ulterior motives, the entire family is arraigned for causing death of Bankelal on 10.02.2021, otherwise, no such incident is committed by the accused-applicant alongwith his father and brother.
Learned counsel further submitted that in the ordinary course of nature, if the things as stated in the first information report be taken as true, the incident as happened was not sufficient to cause death of any person in ordinary course of nature. As such, incident itself when suffers with want of evidence, the prosecution case prima facie is not established against the present accused-applicant and he deserves to be granted bail.
Learned A.G.A. on the other hand protested the bail-application on the basis of materials available with him, the instructions and the case diary saying, irrespective of motive on the part of present accused-applicant and other co-accused, it is established that the incident of violent fracas occurred on 10.02.2021 between the family of accused-applicant and the deceased, wherein, the deceased, who is of 70 years old weak person, got injury, resulting into his death, as such, he can not plead innocence and bail should not be granted to him.
Learned counsel for the bail-applicant in rebuttal submitted that the present accused-applicant has no criminal antecedents, he is simple and common man, residing in the same locality, he is a person of established habitat and profession in the locality and not in a position of fleeing away from the process of the Court. Learned counsel further submitted that the present accused-applicant is not of sturdy in nature and capacity to tamper with the evidences or adversely influence the witness and without fault of him, he is languishing in jail since 14.02.2021, therefore, if he is released on bail, he shall abide himself from the orders of the Court with regard to the presence in the course of trial.
Keeping into mind the valuable right of personal liberty and the fundamental principle not to disbelieve a person to be innocent unless held guilty and if he is not arraigned with the charge of an offence for which the law has put on him a reverse burden of proving his innocence as, held in the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors. reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the bail-applicant to enlarge him on bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record, considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and looking into the complicity of the applicant-accused in the offence, the gravity of offence, severity of punishment and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.
Let applicant (Anoop Kumar), involved in Case Crime No.43 of 2021, under Sections 304, 147, 506, 323 of I.P.C., registered at Police Station Imalia Sultanpur, District Sitapur be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 19.5.2021
Saurabh
